SB 6240
In CommitteeSenate
Aviation impacts grants
Allocating a portion of hazardous substance tax revenues derived from aviation fuel to aircraft noise and air quality mitigation.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill directs a portion of existing tax revenue from aviation fuel—specifically, the amount over $1.48 per barrel—to fund grants for reducing aircraft noise and air pollution in communities near airports. It creates a new state account and a grant program run by the Department of Commerce to support these efforts.
- Creates a new state aircraft noise and air quality mitigation account in the state treasury to receive revenue from a portion of the hazardous substance tax on aviation fuel.
- Allocates to the new account the portion of the aviation fuel tax that exceeds $1.48 per barrel, beginning with taxes collected on or after October 1, 2026.
- Establishes a grant program managed by the Department of Commerce to fund noise and air quality mitigation projects in communities near airports used by port districts.
- Defines "aviation-impacted communities" as those within 10 miles of an airport runway operated by a port district with an active aircraft noise-abatement program.
- Requires taxpayers to report aviation fuel quantities and associated taxes on a separate line on tax returns, starting October 1, 2026.
Who is affected
- Residents of aviation-impacted communities — Communities living within 10 miles of airport runways operated by port districts that run noise-abatement programs may receive funding for projects that reduce noise and improve air quality from aircraft.
- Local governments and port districts — May apply for and receive grant funding to implement noise and air quality mitigation projects near airports.
- Petroleum product distributors and retailers — Must report aviation fuel quantities and taxes separately on tax returns starting October 1, 2026.
- Washington State Department of Commerce — Will manage the new grant program using funds from aviation fuel taxes, including setting application criteria and awarding grants.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Communities near airports — especially those in lower-income or historically overburdened neighborhoods — may receive targeted funding for noise barriers, air filtration systems, or other mitigation measures that directly improve health outcomes like reduced asthma exacerbations and improved sleep quality. The Department of Commerce will administer grants with discretion to prioritize vulnerable populations.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3; Sec. 2(1)(d)The bill creates a dedicated funding stream for reducing aviation-related air pollutants (e.g., PM2.5, NOx) and noise pollution in specific communities, which can improve local air quality and reduce environmental injustice in areas disproportionately burdened by airport operations.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3The bill generates new dedicated revenue for mitigation without drawing from the general fund, avoiding new taxes or fees. This ensures stable, predictable funding for airport-adjacent communities while maintaining fiscal neutrality for the state.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2(1)(d)Port districts and local governments can apply for grants to implement community-level mitigation projects (e.g., sound insulation for schools/homes, vegetation buffers), enabling localized solutions to persistent aviation impacts without requiring new legislation or emergency funding.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1)(d)By funding noise and air quality mitigation in communities near airports, the bill may reduce long-term healthcare costs associated with chronic noise exposure (e.g., hypertension, cardiovascular disease) and air pollution (e.g., respiratory illness), especially for children and elderly residents.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 3
Potential Concerns (5)
Local governments and port districts may apply for grants to fund noise and air quality mitigation projects, but the bill does not guarantee funding for all eligible communities — only those within 10 miles of an airport runway operated by a port district with an active noise-abatement program. This creates uneven access to funds and may leave some communities without support despite being similarly affected.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 2(1)(d)The bill redirects a portion of existing aviation fuel tax revenue (above $1.48/barrel) to a new dedicated account, reducing general fund flexibility. While no new tax is created, this reallocation reduces revenue available for other transportation or environmental priorities across the state.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2(1)(d)Petroleum distributors must now report aviation fuel quantities and taxes on a separate line, adding administrative burden. While the cost per entity is likely low, small fuel retailers and cooperatives may face disproportionate compliance costs relative to larger firms with existing reporting infrastructure.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 4The bill does not address the root causes of aviation noise or pollution — it only funds mitigation *after* impacts occur. This reactive approach may reduce local nuisance but does not reduce overall emissions or noise generation at the source, limiting long-term public health benefits.
TransportationRef: Sec. 2(1)(d)The 10-mile radius definition may exclude communities just beyond the boundary that still experience measurable noise and air quality impacts (e.g., from flight paths, wind direction, or terrain), potentially leaving some residents without access to mitigation funds despite being affected.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3 (definition of 'aviation-impacted communities')
Who Is Most Affected
Residents in low-income neighborhoods near major airports (e.g., Sea-Tac, Paine Field) are more likely to live within the 10-mile zone and suffer from chronic noise and pollution exposure. They stand to benefit most from mitigation grants — especially for home soundproofing, school upgrades, and health outreach — but only if their port district runs an active noise-abatement program.
Port districts with existing noise-abatement programs (e.g., Seattle Port District) can access grant funds to implement mitigation projects, but those without such programs (e.g., smaller rural airports) are excluded unless they adopt new programs first — creating a potential barrier to access.
Large fuel distributors (e.g., Chevron, ExxonMobil) likely already track aviation fuel separately for internal reporting, so compliance costs are minimal. Small independent fuel retailers may face modest administrative costs but can absorb them without significant impact.
The Department of Commerce gains new authority and funding to administer a grant program, expanding its role in environmental justice and public health. This strengthens its capacity but also increases accountability for equitable grant distribution.